I run all of my games from my iPad. I don't have physical copies of anything except the Chronicle sheets and Faction handouts. I've never had a problem before with using the PDF of the Bestiary for looking up any relevant stats. So why is a physical copy now required? Is this just an oversight, or is there some reason why the Bestiary should be different?

An argument that keeps popping up in my area is that MCL is whatever the minimum level to cast a spell (or magic item) that has a variable at that level.
Example: Potion of Greater Magic Fang +x.
Will that potion be at CL 5 and restrict it to a +1 enhancement or can you buy one that gives a +2 at CL 9 (minimum caster level for that enchant)?

Same basic issue as above but for a different reason. After all the abuse my MM took in the LG days, I just started printing out necessary monster stat blocks from refdocs when circumstances. Physical copies might also be tricky to handle at times.

I run all of my games from my iPad. I don't have physical copies of anything except the Chronicle sheets and Faction handouts. I've never had a problem before with using the PDF of the Bestiary for looking up any relevant stats. So why is a physical copy now required? Is this just an oversight, or is there some reason why the Bestiary should be different?

PDFs are fine.

Well, that's a relief!

In that case, the text of the Guide probably ought to be changed to remove the word "physical" from the sentence "... A GM should have a physical copy of the Pathfinder RPG Bestiary..." on page five.

An argument that keeps popping up in my area is that MCL is whatever the minimum level to cast a spell (or magic item) that has a variable at that level.
Example: Potion of Greater Magic Fang +x.
Will that potion be at CL 5 and restrict it to a +1 enhancement or can you buy one that gives a +2 at CL 9 (minimum caster level for that enchant)?

I ruled no but the question keeps popping up.

The spell is greater magic fang. The minimum caster level is 5th. The bonus is based on the caster level.

the more and more I look at the Changelog, the more I am concerned about how this phrase reads:

Quote:

Page 34–35: Added the following sentence under Alignment Infractions subheading: “Characters who commit potentially evil acts (casting spells with the Evil descriptor, killing or maiming someone, etc.) while following specific orders from their faction or the Pathfinder Society, do not suffer alignment infractions. These are cases where karma applies to those making the orders, not their tools.”

What counts as "following specific orders"? Certainly, if a VC gives you orders to kill someone, or bring back their ear, that's a specific order. But, what about willfully casting [Evil] spells that haven't any other redeeming quality other than completing the scenario? Can a player now say "I'm working for the Pathfinder Society, so I don't have to worry about casting [Evil] spells affecting my alignment"? Can a wizard now cast Summon Monster to summon demons and devils just because they're on a mission? Or does the "following specific orders" mean that it has to be something that a VC or whomever told them to do specifically?

I mean, I'm concerned that this is going to be taken that players can cast [Evil] spells without regard to their alignment. It's already been stated that Infernal Healing is fair game ... does that mean that any [Evil] spell can be cast unless it's being used for toture, killing innocents, etc.
i'm not trying to be pedantic, but, I am really concerned about the possibilities that can be played into this reading of the new PFS Guide.

Faction missions are very specific as to what has to be accomplished. Anything that steps outside those bounds are not acceptable when discussing alignment infractions. I'm trusting the GMs (as Ive been asked on numerous occassions) to adjudicate accordingly.

Remember though spellcasting services are cheaper and not limited by caster level = minimum CL to cast the spell, so in alot of scenarios that take place in a large town you could purchase spell casting services and get GMF at CL9 or 13 fairly cheaply.

I believe you will find by "physical" copy they actually mean you require access to those rules from a legal source as the GM (so the PDF or the book would count or the PRD in extreme cases)

Faction missions are very specific as to what has to be accomplished. Anything that steps outside those bounds are not acceptable when discussing alignment infractions. I'm trusting the GMs (as Ive been asked on numerous occassions) to adjudicate accordingly.

We've had GMs on these boards stating that the casting of [Evil] spells will change a character's alignment for no reason other than they cast the spell. Relying on GM discretion doesn't work with several thousand GMs, especially when a character might get removed from play at one table for something that won't even raise an eyebrow at the table next to it. We *really* need an official answer as to whether casting an evil spell has any impact on alignment.

19 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the FAQ.
38 people marked this as a favorite.

Casting an evil spell is not an alignment infraction in and of itself, as long as it doesn't violate any codes, tenents of faith, or other such issues.

Committing an evil act outside of casting the spell, such as using an evil spell to torture an innocent NPC for information or the like is an alignment infraction. Using infernal healing to heal party members is not an evil act.

I can't possibly define what every evil act could be. That is why I rely on GM discretion. But simply casting an evil descriptor spell is not an evil act in and of itself.

Faction missions are very specific as to what has to be accomplished. Anything that steps outside those bounds are not acceptable when discussing alignment infractions. I'm trusting the GMs (as Ive been asked on numerous occassions) to adjudicate accordingly.

We've had GMs on these boards stating that the casting of [Evil] spells will change a character's alignment for no reason other than they cast the spell. Relying on GM discretion doesn't work with several thousand GMs, especially when a character might get removed from play at one table for something that won't even raise an eyebrow at the table next to it. We *really* need an official answer as to whether casting an evil spell has any impact on alignment.

For the record, I think any use of Infernal Healing should be allowed. I used it to keep my friends alive, on the Society's missions

Casting an evil spell is not an alignment infraction in and of itself, as long as it doesn't violate any codes, tenents of faith, or other such issues.

Committing an evil act outside of casting the spell, such as using an evil spell to torture an innocent NPC for information or the like is an alignment infraction. Using infernal healing to heal party members is not an evil act.

I can't possibly define what every evil act could be. That is why I rely on GM discretion. But simply casting an evil descriptor spell is not an evil act in and of itself.

Then this is something that should be not only FAQ'd, but also in the Guide.

Quote:

Evil: Spells that draw upon evil powers or conjure creatures from evil-aligned planes or with the evil subtype should have the evil descriptor.

I'm not sure how using one of those spells isn't an alignment infraction, but, if that's the GMs rule, that's fine, but, it needs to be made abundantly clear. If nothing else, if it's not so, it greatly damages the rules for having an alignment in the first place for anyone that doesn't have a specific code (like a paladin's) that is written out and delineated. And even then, there's likely players that will try to rationalize a paladin being okay with it.

Then this is something that should be not only FAQ'd, but also in the Guide.

Actually, the latest version of the Guide states that rulings from campaign staff on these boards should be honored, but players and GMs aren't required to keep up with them (unlike the Guide and the FAQ), so if a question arises you can refer them to Mike's post. If you think it'll be a big issue, print out a copy of the post and take it with you to games.

If you feel strongly it should be included in the FAQ, click the "FAQ" link on Mike's post.

It won't be included in both as that just makes it redundant -- GMs and players are already supposed to be familiar with both documents.

Casting an evil spell is not an alignment infraction in and of itself, as long as it doesn't violate any codes, tenents of faith, or other such issues.

Committing an evil act outside of casting the spell, such as using an evil spell to torture an innocent NPC for information or the like is an alignment infraction. Using infernal healing to heal party members is not an evil act.

I can't possibly define what every evil act could be. That is why I rely on GM discretion. But simply casting an evil descriptor spell is not an evil act in and of itself.

Just want to throw in my favorite example of why casting spells with alignment descriptors can't be made automatic infractions: If my lawful neutral cleric of Pharasma casts protection from evil, that's not an inherently good act, and it won't change her alignment to lawful good (where she would be unable to cast at all since she would be more than one step away from her deity).

I imagine it could be from any scenario or module that has a BBEG spellcaster.

Basically once he's dead, you cast blood transcription and start drinking his blood. And since killing him was not an evil act, using blood transcription on him wouldn't be either.

As for how, in PFS, you would "hunt a spellcaster down with the intent to specifically drink his blood for a new spell" I don't know how that would apply.

I was actually using that as a contrast to show an evil use of that spell, versus recycling a perfectly good spellcaster's blood.

Similarly, intentionally using infernal healing on a paladin when other options are available could be viewed as a more evil use of the spell.

Since changing the alignment of a character is the responsibility of a GM and the decision is a subjective one, I thought it might be a good idea to have some discussed examples, so that the decision doesn't have to be so arbitrary.

Casting an evil spell is not an alignment infraction in and of itself, as long as it doesn't violate any codes, tenents of faith, or other such issues.

Committing an evil act outside of casting the spell, such as using an evil spell to torture an innocent NPC for information or the like is an alignment infraction. Using infernal healing to heal party members is not an evil act.

I can't possibly define what every evil act could be. That is why I rely on GM discretion. But simply casting an evil descriptor spell is not an evil act in and of itself.

Brilliant, thanks for clearing that up. It was a potential Sword of Damocles hanging over any number of PCs heads.

A Neutral spellcaster summons a Devil to help the party fight the BBEG, and that's all the creature does before the spell ends. This is not grounds for changing the caster's alignment, correct?

Whereas, using the creature to torture innocents would, yes?

Which brings me to my next question. In completing your faction mission, you need to extract information out of someone by any means, would summoning the same Devil to intimidate, harass, or otherwise torment (but not kill/maim/etc) the person, fall under the "safe zone" since they're just using what methods they have at their disposal to complete the mission for their faction head?

I imagine it could be from any scenario or module that has a BBEG spellcaster.

Basically once he's dead, you cast blood transcription and start drinking his blood. And since killing him was not an evil act, using blood transcription on him wouldn't be either.

As for how, in PFS, you would "hunt a spellcaster down with the intent to specifically drink his blood for a new spell" I don't know how that would apply.

I was actually using that as a contrast to show an evil use of that spell, versus recycling a perfectly good spellcaster's blood.

Similarly, intentionally using infernal healing on a paladin when other options are available could be viewed as a more evil use of the spell.

Since changing the alignment of a character is the responsibility of a GM and the decision is a subjective one, I thought it might be a good idea to have some discussed examples, so that the decision doesn't have to be so arbitrary.

The it would probably be better served in its own thread and not in the Changelog thread for guide 4.2.

A Neutral spellcaster summons a Devil to help the party fight the BBEG, and that's all the creature does before the spell ends. This is not grounds for changing the caster's alignment, correct?

Whereas, using the creature to torture innocents would, yes?

Which brings me to my next question. In completing your faction mission, you need to extract information out of someone by any means, would summoning the same Devil to intimidate, harass, or otherwise torment (but not kill/maim/etc) the person, fall under the "safe zone" since they're just using what methods they have at their disposal to complete the mission for their faction head?

Then, by definition in the new Guide, it was given by the faction head an it was clearly stated "by any means", and thus would be in the "safe zone." However, if that faction leader advised to obtain that information through intimidation, that would mean intimidation and not torture.

A Neutral spellcaster summons a Devil to help the party fight the BBEG, and that's all the creature does before the spell ends. This is not grounds for changing the caster's alignment, correct?

Whereas, using the creature to torture innocents would, yes?

Which brings me to my next question. In completing your faction mission, you need to extract information out of someone by any means, would summoning the same Devil to intimidate, harass, or otherwise torment (but not kill/maim/etc) the person, fall under the "safe zone" since they're just using what methods they have at their disposal to complete the mission for their faction head?

Then, by definition in the new Guide, it was given by the faction head an it was clearly stated "by any means", and thus would be in the "safe zone." However, if that faction leader advised to obtain that information through intimidation, that would mean intimidation and not torture.

Of course. I was just making sure summoning some big, nasty, evil creature to stand there and growl and look intimidating would be an acceptable tactic, so long as they didn't hurt the person (though there would likely be threatening to do such things).

Actually, the latest version of the Guide states that rulings from campaign staff on these boards should be honored, but players and GMs aren't required to keep up with them (unlike the Guide and the FAQ), so if a question arises you can refer them to Mike's post. If you think it'll be a big issue, print out a copy of the post and take it with you to games.

That's the beauty of the way it's stated. GMs don't have to keep up on the boards, and obviously can't be required to honor official statements they've never seen. But if I show up with a printout, they can no longer claim they haven't seen it--and now they're obligated to honor it. I approve.

Ok, so it's needed as a reference for scenarios in order to save words in writing the scenario, and not as a general reference for the GM in order to reference what the players are bringing to the table?

I guess I'm not understanding exactly what being a core assumption means, in the past I thought it meant that anything in it was free game for players because the GM was expected to have it. Which if that was the case then it would be hard for the GM to know what the players are bringing to the table to print out before the gameday.

That is, in fact, explicitly what "Core Assumption" did mean, at least before season 4. It appears to have changed.

The following spells found in the Core Rulebook are not legal for play and may never be used, found, purchased, or learned in any form by PCs playing Pathfinder Society Scenarios: awaken, permanency, and reincarnate.
All spells and effects end at the end of a scenario with the following exceptions:
• Spells and effects with permanent or instantaneous duration that heal damage or remove harmful conditions remain in effect at the end of the scenario.
• Afflictions and harmful conditions obtained during a scenario remain until healed and carry over from scenario to scenario.
• A character may have one each of the following spells that carries overs from scenario to scenario: continual flame, masterwork transformation, secret chest, and secret page."

does the last line mean if my PC cleric casts Continual Flame on his Ioun Stone - it carries over into later scenarios?

How about if he casts it on a different PCs' equipment? that PC now has a Continual Flame cast by an XX level cleric... so, who pays the 50 gp material component cost? The Cleric PC or the Fighter getting the spell cast on his whatever? I just may post this as a thread of it's own I think.... I've got some ideas and this looks like fun.

I find it funny that this guide fixed the problem with the Heirloom trait being a tiny trap option and not in the way I thought. I figured we would end up seeing it removed as that was the quickest simplest way instead I'm impressed to see that we can now have it made masterwork and thus actually carry our war-hero fathers Longsword all the way to retirement. Thank you.

Casting an evil spell is not an alignment infraction in and of itself, as long as it doesn't violate any codes, tenents of faith, or other such issues.

Committing an evil act outside of casting the spell, such as using an evil spell to torture an innocent NPC for information or the like is an alignment infraction. Using infernal healing to heal party members is not an evil act.

I can't possibly define what every evil act could be. That is why I rely on GM discretion. But simply casting an evil descriptor spell is not an evil act in and of itself.

I rarely talk on these messageboards (but often read them) but this is a time which I just have to put in my two cents.

Casting a evil spell is not a alignment infraction? What is the point of having a alignment system in place? Evil and Good form the basis for moral actions in most FRPG's. We roleplay our characters moral actions based on this system. If my good cleric or wizard draws forth a drop of devils blood and a dose of unholy water to infernally annoint and heal a companion this is a gross violation of the good alignment axis. To annoint in its simplest term means to smear or rub the substance onto something, while another definition includes it in a rite or ritual which would be exactly what spellcasting is.

If you want to make it legal for a wizard to buy a wand of infernal healing and be the party healer just say so. But dont ruin the game by saying that for a good character to cast Infernal Healing is not an alignment infraction is just silly. It is indeed and evil act and a good character that does so should be warned by GM that her action of useing evil to do good are moving her toward the neutral center of the good/evil axis. At the most it should not be allowed for good player use is PFS.

Infernal Healing is one small example. Good Summoners, Wizards, and Clerics should find summoning evil outsiders equally appalling. But that is just my opinion, Summon Monster does not have the evil desciriptor.